Angry

Until now, I had held off on getting upset about the US Attorney firing brouhaha. Emotions fly fast and furious without facts, and I'd rather not take part. But I read something that has convinced me that there is something ugly afoot that must be addressed.

Concerning this matter, I think that prosecution based on politics and not the facts or law (such as bringing charges before an election to defame a political opponent) is unethical, and ought to be criminal. I get hot under the collar because of the Libby/Plame/Wilson prosecution, because it appeared to be more of a witch-hunt than a legitimate case (from my limited exposure), and I know that conservative pundits repeatedly said that charges being brought for political reasons is a bad thing.

But personal accounts of a Republican Attorney, nominated by Republican Senators, have left me very troubled. He implies that part of the reason he was fired/forced to resign was that he refused to bring charges against New Mexico Democrats before the November elections because he did not feel there was sufficient evidence.

He did the right thing by this account - don't bring charges if you don't have the evidence - and was soon forced out.

This is ugly, and I won't stand for it. If Republicans want to toss my vote to the wind, this is a perfect strategy to follow. I won't support a party or a person that condones such political pressure being brought to bear on what should be an apolitical process. It is a sure sign of power-before-ethics, and no one with that mindset deserves to hold office in the United States. Many do nevertheless, but I do what I can.

An Excerpt:
As this story has unfolded these last few weeks, much has been made of my decision to not prosecute alleged voter fraud in New Mexico. Without the benefit of reviewing evidence gleaned from F.B.I. investigative reports, party officials in my state have said that I should have begun a prosecution. What the critics, who don’t have any experience as prosecutors, have asserted is reprehensible — namely that I should have proceeded without having proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The public has a right to believe that prosecution decisions are made on legal, not political, grounds.

What’s more, their narrative has largely ignored that I was one of just two United States attorneys in the country to create a voter-fraud task force in 2004. Mine was bipartisan, and it included state and local law enforcement and election officials.

After reviewing more than 100 complaints of voter fraud, I felt there was one possible case that should be prosecuted federally. I worked with the F.B.I. and the Justice Department’s public integrity section. As much as I wanted to prosecute the case, I could not overcome evidentiary problems. The Justice Department and the F.B.I. did not disagree with my decision in the end not to prosecute.